How fast can glaciers respond to climate change?

Sep 13, 2012

This shows University at Buffalo students Elizabeth Thomas, Sean McGrane and Nicolás Young on Baffin Island (left to right). They were members of a team studying the historical extent of glaciers on the Arctic island. Credit: Jason Briner

A new Arctic study in the journal Science is helping to unravel an important mystery surrounding climate change: How quickly glaciers can melt and grow in response to shifts in temperature.

According to the new research, glaciers on Canada's Baffin Island expanded rapidly during a brief cold snap about 8,200 years ago. The discovery adds to a growing body of evidence showing that ice sheets reacted rapidly in the past to cooling or warming, raising concerns that they could do so again as the Earth heats up.

"One of the questions scientists have been asking is how long it takes for these huge chunks of ice to respond to a global climate phenomenon," said study co-author Jason Briner, PhD, a University at Buffalo associate professor of geology. "People don't know whether glaciers can respond quickly enough to matter to our grandchildren, and we're trying to answer this from a geological perspective, by looking at Earth's history."

"What we're seeing," he added, "is that these ice sheets are surprisingly sensitive to even short periods of temperature change."

Briner's colleagues on the study included lead author Nicolás Young, who worked on the study as part of his PhD at UB and is now a postdoctoral researcher at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory; Dylan H. Rood of the Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre and the University of California, Santa Barbara; and Robert C. Finkel of UC Berkeley.

The research, scheduled to appear in Science on Sept. 14, found that mountain glaciers on Baffin Island, along with a massive North American ice sheet, expanded quickly when the Earth cooled about 8,200 years ago.

The finding was surprising because the cold snap was extremely short-lived: The temperature fell for only a few decades, and then returned to previous levels within 150 years or so.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.

"It's not at all amazing that a small local glacier would grow in response to an event like this, but it is incredible that a large ice sheet would do the same," Young said.

To conduct the research, Briner led a team to Baffin Island to read the landscape for clues about the pre-historical size and activity of glaciers that covered the island.

Moraines—piles of rocks and debris that glaciers deposit while expanding—provided valuable information. By dating these and other geological features, the scientists were able to deduce that glaciers expanded rapidly on Baffin Island about 8,200 years ago, a period coinciding with a short-lived cold snap.

The researchers also found that Baffin Island's glaciers appeared to have been larger during this brief period of cooling than during the Younger Dryas period, a much more severe episode of cooling that began about 13,000 years ago and lasted more than a millennium.

This counterintuitive finding suggests that unexpected factors may govern a glacier's response to climate change.

With regard to Baffin Island, the study's authors say that while overall cooling may have been more intense during the Younger Dryas, summer temperatures may have actually decreased more during the shift 8,200 years ago. These colder summers could have fueled the glaciers' rapid advance, decreasing the length of time that ice melted during the summer.

Detailed analyses of this kind will be critical to developing accurate models for predicting how future climate change will affect glaciers around the world, Briner said.

Related Stories

(PhysOrg.com) -- A fast-moving glacier on the Greenland Ice Sheet expanded in a geologic instant several millennia ago, growing in response to cooling periods that lasted not much longer than a century, according ...

In recent decades, the combined forces of climate warming and short-term variability have forced the massive glaciers that blanket Greenland into retreat, with some scientists worrying that deglaciation could become irreversible. ...

(PhysOrg.com) -- Modern glaciers, such as those making up the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, are capable of undergoing periods of rapid shrinkage or retreat, according to new findings by paleoclimatologists ...

A new University of Colorado at Boulder study has shown that ice caps on the northern plateau of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic have shrunk by more than 50 percent in the last half century as a result ...

During the last ice age, glaciers dominated New Zealands Southern Alps until warming temperatures some 20,000 years ago sent them into retreat. Scientists at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, with their colleagues, ...

Recommended for you

An analysis of buildings tagged red and yellow by structural engineers after the August 2014 earthquake in Napa links pre-1950 buildings and the underlying sedimentary basin to the greatest shaking damage, ...

As everyone who lives in the San Francisco Bay Area knows, the Earth moves under our feet. But what about the stresses that cause earthquakes? How much is known about them? Until now, our understanding of ...

(Phys.org)—A trio of researchers with the Indian Institute of Science has found, via computer simulation, that deforestation in one part of the world can impact rainfall patterns in another. In their paper ...

It's no surprise that Arctic sea ice is thinning. What is new is just how long, how steadily, and how much it has declined. University of Washington researchers compiled modern and historic measurements to ...

Reasearchers at the University of Cadiz have carried out a study that establishes the atmospheric conditions responsible for the generation of extreme meteorological events in the Gulf of Cadiz, which can ...

"Nothing to do with CO2" Well - aren't we all lucky to have happy Parker on the board - always ready and willing to say something stupid. Wonder what Parker thinks actually causes the earth to cool, and to warm. Maybe Milankovitch cycles - aided by C02 feedback effect? Parker may want to check out this graph - http://www.ncdc.n...ange.jpg The source article for this graph makes an interesting read - if you are interested in looking at the relationship between C02 and temperatures over the past 400,000 years. http://www.ncdc.n...nge.html

So if it cools like the Little Ice Age then glaciers grow. And when it warms up again after a period like the Little Ice age they shrink.

Nothing to do with CO2.

That WAS correct Parky back in the Younger Dryas and the LIA ( disregarding natural CO2 cycles ). Unfortunately atmospheric CO2 is being added by mankind and is rising dangerously - so things are different today.

Sane people understand why increasing atmospheric CO2 content on a planet that is in a warming phase will severely mess up established climatic variance (throw another log on the fire so to speak). Again we are back to your lack of belief that CO2 causes warming...essentially you're back to your water isn't wet argument. We can keep posting about it until you prove once again how much you actually understand about the topics you're trying to debate...these are always good for a chuckle.

Here is data for the past 2,000 years. I hope the comparison between the end of the little ice age, and today is clear. Nothing out of the ordinary happening there!! We have had 8 more years of warming since the end of this graph...

Here is data for the past 2,000 years. I hope the comparison between the end of the little ice age, and today is clear. Nothing out of the ordinary happening there!! We have had 8 more years of warming since the end of this graph...

You just stepped in it. Read a little further down the page, and find a nice graph going back 12 thousand years, and showing that current temperatures are still lower than (just after) the period studied in this present article. And this chart goes back to when Micheal Mann and company were trying to sell the hockey stick.

By the way, I personally believe that we need to reduce CO2 levels due to the health effects on humans, which will reach crisis levels before global warming. So build new nuclear power plants and switch from coal or oil to natural gas whenever and wherever possible. Your kids and grandkids health may depend on it.

If you notice, you will see that we are in a section of the cycle that could be cooling us a bit. However, you do have to be careful because the many-body problem of the planet orbits is not predictable for longer than a few hundred thousand years. That leads to more uncertainty in the forcing as you go back in time. In fact, there are a lot of open issues with the cycles (as noted in the link). However, this appears to be the reason for the changes you are looking at. I like the math and physics for this approach but we are tossing a wrench in the gears when we change the planet's albedo and emission characteristics.

"You just stepped in it" Not really - I was responding to a comment that said the current melting is similar to the little ice age - so the time frame I referenced was appropriate. Earlier I referenced a chart that goes back 400,000 years - and shows a very close fit between temperature and C02 levels. Any suggestion that C02 has "nothing to do" with glacier melt (Parkers suggestion) is just crazy...

Thank you, djr, for the helpful links.If I read the longer term chart correctly, it seems to show the temperature change leads the CO2 change, by several hundred yearsin some cases. What is the explanation for this?

It seems pretty clear to me that there is exactly one person posting on this article who repeatedly ignores counterarguments to his claims, article after article, and who is contributing absolutely nothing of value to the discussion. I say it's time to ignore him on a large scale. Follow any other comments, but leave his alone. Address the content indirectly if need be, but don't address the person. Maybe then we can have a science site with a higher level of science and a lower level of trolling. Also, maybe then we can start to get rid of attacks on people and their intelligence and focus entirely on the value of their comments. It would make for a much nicer discussion all around.

"Patently false. There's been no significant global warming in at least 10 years."

So here is an interesting question. As you know - I acknowledge temperature data currently show a plateau - going back about 15 years.

So here is an article referenced by Claudius - that claims that temperatures are leading C02 levels, not the other way round. http://www.scienc...12001658

But C02 levels are still going up - while temperatures appear to be on a plateau. So which is it Uba? Are temperatures not going up - in which case Claudius is full of it right? Or are you wrong - and the globe is in fact continuing to warm?

It seems pretty clear to me that there is exactly one person posting on this article who repeatedly ignores counterarguments to his claims, article after article, and who is contributing absolutely nothing of value to the discussion. I say it's time to ignore him on a large scale. Follow any other comments, but leave his alone. Address the content indirectly if need be, but don't address the person. Maybe then we can have a science site with a higher level of science and a lower level of trolling. Also, maybe then we can start to get rid of attacks on people and their intelligence and focus entirely on the value of their comments. It would make for a much nicer discussion all around.

I agree cdt - ( although there are two regular miscreants ). Nothing said or linked by us will make a jot of difference to their thinking. All we can hope is that others who come on here will see the sense of the science as we deny ignorance.

It seems pretty clear to me that there is exactly one person posting on this article who repeatedly ignores counterarguments to his claims, article after article, and who is contributing absolutely nothing of value to the discussion. I say it's time to ignore him on a large scale.

No, he bases his posts on real science and on scientific methodology, providing a much needed counterbalance to a lot of cr*p that a very small number of people try to pass off as informed. (I admit, though, that I could do without the ad hominem parts of his posts.)

The Antarctic is showing a loss of ice volume on the continent. This ice does not simply vanish, but flows off the continent and onto the ocean surface where it maintains and extends the various Antarctic ice shelves.

How does a lump of butter left on a warm counter top cover more area after it is warmed then it does when it is cool.

This has been explained to you at least three times.

Yet you continue to ask for the explanation, less than a day after it was provided to you by another.

On Friday, Arctic sea ice area reached a new record low, never before recorded in human history. The new low is 2.24 million square kilometers.

This record low is down from the 2.7 million kilometers of sea ice area that existed when ParkerTard claimed 2.5 weeks ago that Arctic sea ice had reached it's minimum for the season.

The current sea ice area is 2.5 million square kilometers lower than historical norms, and is now past the half way mark to a total ice free Arctic.

An ocean covered with ice absorbs virtually no sunlight, while one that is ice free absorbs 80 percent or more of the sunlight that falls upon it. As a result melting sea ice begats more melted sea ice.

The pattern over the last several decades has been for a new minimum to be reached that is a good fraction of a million square kilometers less than previous and for that minimum to be approximately maintained for another 4 to 5 years until a new dramatically lower minimum is reache

If that Pattern persists, then an ice free arctic can be expected to occur in approximately 25 years.

However, as a result of acceleration in the rate of ice loss, due to the enhanced Arctic ice loss that results from the previous ice loss, an ice free Arctic should be realized in a shorter time frame, of 20 years, or perhaps 15.

At that point, all energy falling upon the Arctic ocean will go to heating the water as opposed to melting ice. Since the heat of fusion of ice is 80 cal/g while the energy needed to raise the temperature of water 1'C is only 1 cal/g the 2.2 million square kilometers of what is now ice covered ocean will be increasing it's temperature at a rate that is 80 times higher than it is now.

Winter ice formation will be substantially delayed and the higher temperatures will greatly accelerate the loss of Greenland ice.

Climatological winter will essentially vanish from North America and the ongoing Desertification of the U.S. grain belt will accelerate.

You have been told countless times that the Arctic and Antarctic are very different. Ice extent is not the same as ice VOLUME. Antarctic ice is flowing off land and does not melt from below until in the sea. As VD has explained, and the melting butter analogy is apt. Please try not to think of the world in such simplistic terms. Just because it is ice doesn't mean it will behave the same way in both places. Yes a warming world will do both things.

Runrig: Antarctic ice is flowing off land and does not melt from below until in the sea.

Nonsense. Both are Sea Ice. It gets cold. Ice forms. Antarctic Sea Ice is not "flowing" from the land.

So much for science.

Do you not agree that the vast majority of ice in Antarctica is on land ? Surely you do.

Given that fact the edges of the icecap will "flow" away from the interior (as do glaciers down valleys ). Some ice does extend over the surrounding sea and of course it grows over sea in the winter. However the melting effect is not the same as over the arctic ( save close to Greenland ) as in the summer in Antarctica there is calving at the edges all around the icecap but especially in the Antarctic peninsula. I refer you to this article ... http://www.antarc...p?id=838Yes, it is science and yes it is complicated, with feed-backs both ve and -ve. It's not a case of a "one size fits all" warming.

So here is an interesting question. As you know - I acknowledge temperature data currently show a plateau - going back about 15 years.

So here is an article referenced by Claudius - that claims that temperatures are leading C02 levels, not the other way round.

But C02 levels are still going up - while temperatures appear to be on a plateau. So which is it Uba? Are temperatures not going up - in which case Claudius is full of it right? Or are you wrong - and the globe is in fact continuing to warm?

This is a false dichotomy argument. Temperatures are what they are.

That CO2 has been observed to lead and/or follow global temperatures in no way demonstrates CO2 is the cause of these temperature changes. Historically, it does appear it may be an artifact of temperature changes, but there are a lot of artifacts of temperature changes.

"Antarctic sea ice does not reach the South Pole, extending only to about 75 degrees south latitude (in the Ross and Weddell Seas), because of the Antarctic continent. However, Arctic sea ice can extend all the way to the North Pole. Here, the Arctic sea ice receives less solar energy at the surface because the sun's rays strike at a more oblique angle, compared to lower latitudes.

Water from the Pacific Ocean and several rivers in Russia and Canada provide fresher, less dense water to the Arctic Ocean. So the Arctic Ocean has a layer of cold, fresh water near the surface with warmer, saltier water below. This cold, fresh water layer typically allows more ice growth in the Arctic than the Antarctic."

By the way, I personally believe that we need to reduce CO2 levels due to the health effects on humans, which will reach crisis levels before global warming. So build new nuclear power plants and switch from coal or oil to natural gas whenever and wherever possible. Your kids and grandkids health may depend on it.

CO2 is an inert gas. Generally speaking, it has no known negative health effects, unless it is breathed in concentrations sufficient to displace oxygen and thereby cause oxygen deprivation. We naturally exhale CO2 when we breathe.

No, he bases his posts on real science and on scientific methodology, providing a much needed counterbalance to a lot of cr*p that a very small number of people try to pass off as informed. (I admit, though, that I could do without the ad hominem parts of his posts.)

Actually, no. He (it, actually) uses very little real science. He appears to be a word generator.

He uses many fallacious argument styles (denialism, ad hominem, poisoning the well, abusive fallacy, argumentum ad baculum, argumentum ad populum, ...to name a few). But most notably he is the master of argument of verbosity.

He just runs on an on, repeating the same fallacious arguments over and over again, ad nauseam, even when it's been demonstrated his arguments are patently false.

It is not a false dichotomy argument. Current science says that the emission of green house gases is trapping heat into our atmosphere and at least in part responsible for the warming we have seen over the past 100 years or so. The strong historical relationship between C02 and temperature is clear. http://www.ncdc.n...nge.html Claudius' article was a clear attempt to debunk the idea that C02 causes temperature change - by establishing that temperatures actually lead C02 levels. This would of course cause a problem for you argument about no warming over the past 15 years- being that C02 levels are continuing to rise. You can't have it both ways - and it is not a false dichotomy argument.

Runrig: Antarctic ice is flowing off land and does not melt from below until in the sea.

Nonsense. Both are Sea Ice. It gets cold. Ice forms. Antarctic Sea Ice is not "flowing" from the land.

So much for science.

Do you not agree that the vast majority of ice in Antarctica is on land ? Surely you do.

Given that fact the edges of the icecap will "flow" away from the interior (as do glaciers down valleys ). Some ice does extend over the surrounding sea and of course it grows over sea in the winter. However the melting effect is not the same as over the arctic ( save close to Greenland ) as in the summer in Antarctica there is calving at the edges all around the icecap but especially in the Antarctic peninsula.

You two are talking apples and oranges.

"Sea ice" generally forms in the open ocean water. "Shelf ice" generally flows off from, and is attached to, the land. Here's a cool video:

If Parker would stop spreading rubbish - and read up on the subject - this issue would not be being discussed. There is a very complete discussion of the whole issue in this link - that has been presented many times.

And in no way ".... when it's been demonstrated his arguments are patently false." is this the case. In your alternative universe but no other. Remember the science is the consensus, you (2) are in the minority. Sorry if it does not fit your world view, but, you know, shit happens.I'm no defender of Ad Hominem comments but I have not found his science in any way lacking. It seems he has been trying to teach you guys climate science for longer than the rest of us. I suggest he has become tired of beating his head against a wall. I would. I have. But I will keep things civil

If Parker would stop spreading rubbish - and read up on the subject - this issue would not be being discussed. There is a very complete discussion of the whole issue in this link - that has been presented many times.

Claiming it's not false dichotomy doesn't make it not a false dichotomy.

Current science says that the emission of green house gases is trapping heat into our atmosphere and at least in part responsible for the warming we have seen over the past 100 years or so.

This is a hypothesis, it's not necessarily true. Have you read any of the science this is based upon?

The strong historical relationship between C02 and temperature is clear.

Isn't it interesting they took out the color key for the lines on this famous chart? Why do you think they did that?

And from this very same reference:

"While it might seem simple to determine cause and effect between carbon dioxide and climate from which change occurs first, or from some other means, the determination of cause and effect remains exceedingly difficult."

Claudius' article was a clear attempt to debunk the idea that C02 causes temperature change - by establishing that temperatures actually lead C02 levels.

It's a valid argument to make.

This would of course cause a problem for you argument about no warming over the past 15 years- being that C02 levels are continuing to rise.

How so? Temperatures are what they are, and CO2 levels are what they are. To suggest either CO2 concentrations absolutely must cause temperature changes or, if false, temperatures absolutely must drive CO2 changes, is the false dichotomy.

You can't have it both ways - and it is not a false dichotomy argument.

"A false ...dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking,...) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option."

How should ParkerTard and his filthy, Conservative, denialist brethren be punished for their crimes against nature and man?

Public Execution is simply not sufficient.

VendicarD.....this is simply not acceptable......what good are the 'Terms and Conditions' on this site. Death threats....there is no reasonable moderation on this site. Wretched......

And here runrig, cdt, rubberman, Caliban, and thermodynamics et al. sing his praises. They all ought to be ashamed.

You obviously neglected the last part of my comment, so I'll repeat it for you. Try reading it this time so you don't have to embarrass yourself again.

(I admit, though, that I could do without the ad hominem parts of his posts.)

VD does repeat arguments, but they tend to be arguments that are denied by 2 others without being refuted, and upon being repeated they are often spelled out in further detail with more backing evidence. Our local denialists simply refuse to see.

To suggest either CO2 concentrations absolutely must cause temperature changes or, if false, temperatures absolutely must drive CO2 changes, is the false dichotomy.

I will yield on the false dichotomy issue - I see what you are saying. However - if two variables are correlated - it is valid and appropriate to explore the nature of the correlation - and to ask if there is causation involved. Current science believes there is correlation between C02 increase - and temperature increase and provides an explanation for the mechanisms involved. If you wish to argue that there is no causation - you must surely provide an alternative hypothesis. The IPCC ascribes a probability of 90% to the likelihood of C02 being the driver of recent warming http://en.wikiped...e_change

I guess you haven't been paying attention then. But what should I expect from someone who doesn't know the difference between decadal and multi-decadal?

It seems he has been trying to teach you guys climate science for longer than the rest of us. I suggest he has become tired of beating his head against a wall. I would. I have. But I will keep things civil

You obviously neglected the last part of my comment, so I'll repeat it for you. Try reading it this time so you don't have to embarrass yourself again.

(I admit, though, that I could do without the ad hominem parts of his posts.)

So you think this makes it all okay? Really? Death threats and all?

VD does repeat arguments, but they tend to be arguments that are denied by 2 others without being refuted, and upon being repeated they are often spelled out in further detail with more backing evidence.

LOL! You are a fool if you believe this. Vendibot can't even read the dates on these posts.

And the Ozone hole over the Artic, now the same size as the Antarctic Ozone Hole (both probably natural) doesn't cause any change in arctic ice?

"About a year ago, the scientists detected that ozone degradation above the Arctic for the first time reached an extent comparable to that of the ozone hole above the South Pole."

"According to the study, occurrence of the Arctic ozone hole was mainly due to the extraordinarily cold temperatures in the ozone layer that is located at about 18 km height in the stratosphere, i.e. the second layer of the earth's atmosphere."

You obviously didn't read VD's posts about how the standard deviation drowns out the signal. So I guess the only resort left is to fight cherry picking with cherry picking. Compare your graph with the graphs -- generated at the same site using the same software -- starting at 2000, and then starting at 2008. You'll see that both graphs trend upward.

You should also, of course, embrace all of the following conclusions, given that you already proclaimed the second:

There HAS been global warming for the last 12 years.There has been NO global warming for the last 10 years.ANDThere HAS been global warming for the last 4 years.

I'll let you run the numbers for the years in between to you can fill in your own irrationality to make it closer to complete. That should give you a large number of cherries to pick from for your future denialist posts. Don't expect anyone to be impressed, though.

"Confluences of chaos." Interesting. The recent C02 level graph - and the historical correlation of the two variables would surely not indicate pure chaos. The temperature record of the last few years gives cause for pause - and concern about the causation between the two variables. I guess we still have so much left to understand. Perhaps we have prematurely jumped to conclusions. Thanks.

There HAS been global warming for the last 12 years.There has been NO global warming for the last 10 years.ANDThere HAS been global warming for the last 4 years.

Essentially a flat line for 15 years. A few wobbles. Scientists know a flat line when they see one. Fanatics (like you and VD) deny the existence of contrary data (and VD usually throws in a death threat).

"Day 256 Antarctic ice is the highest ever for the date, and the eighth highest daily reading ever recorded. All seven higher readings occurred during the third week of September, 2007 – the week of the previous Arctic record minimum."

So I guess the only resort left is to fight cherry picking with cherry picking. Compare your graph with the graphs -- generated at the same site using the same software -- starting at 2000, and then starting at 2008. You'll see that both graphs trend upward.

So? When did I claim anything about these time periods?

I understand VD's claims about statistics well enough to know not to put too much store in either of these graphs, and hence know to put just as little store in the graph that you plotted.

You should also, of course, embrace all of the following conclusions, given that you already proclaimed the second:

There HAS been global warming for the last 12 years.There has been NO global warming for the last 10 years.ANDThere HAS been global warming for the last 4 years.

False dichotomy. Just because there has been no global warming in at least 10 years does not require no warming to show up in either of the other data sets.

I'll let you run the numbers for the years in between to you can fill in your own irrationality to make it closer to complete. That should give you a large number of cherries to pick from for your future denialist posts. Don't expect anyone to be impressed, though.

"Confluences of chaos." Interesting. The recent C02 level graph - and the historical correlation of the two variables would surely not indicate pure chaos. The temperature record of the last few years gives cause for pause - and concern about the causation between the two variables.

Indeed.

A consideration:

If we assign a high degree of CO2 influence to man, and natural CO2 variances are artifacts of (and not primary drivers of) temperature change, then for there to be a deviation in the pattern now shouldn't be unexpected.

I guess we still have so much left to understand.

Indeed.

Perhaps we have prematurely jumped to conclusions.

Possibly, but this is in our nature. Being moderately concerned is still reasonable. And a general (and healthy) concern for the environment is always appropriate.

Science observes the world and makes theories that fit it. People the world over are educated to do that for us. It is a popularity contest in that a majority of those scientists have explained things this way. Ockam's razor (and common sense) says a group of people who are knowledgeable about something are more likely to be correct than a group of people who are not.

I have not found his science in any way lacking.

I guess you haven't been paying attention then.

I have - but then I have "decades" ( I am an astounding 58 remember) of accumulated knowledge on the subject. Some on here haven't.

But what should I expect from someone who doesn't know the difference between decadal and multi-decadal?

What should I expect from someone who doesn't know that you/your are plural possessive pronouns?

Science observes the world and makes theories that fit it. People the world over are educated to do that for us. It is a popularity contest in that a majority of those scientists have explained things this way. Ockam's razor (and common sense) says a group of people who are knowledgeable about something are more likely to be correct than a group of people who are not.

It's "Occam's razor," moron.

I have "decades" of accumulated knowledge on the subject. Some on here haven't.

Says the self-proclaimed expert who states the PDO is a decadal cycle. LOL

Claiming you're an expert, and being an expert aren't the same thing.

What should I expect from someone who doesn't know that you/your are plural possessive pronouns?

And what should I expect from someone who thinks two people can have a (single) one-track mind or a (single) prejudice.

Ockam's razor (and common sense) says a group of people who are knowledgeable about something are more likely to be correct than a group of people who are not.

I agree with you run - I think we should be paying attention to the data and the science. I am reading an interesting book - Dyson "The Scientist as Rebel" There are certainly plenty of examples of mainstream science getting stuck in a singular explanation - and being very wrong. I am very vulnerable to the tendency to form a conclusion - and then become unwilling to consider information that contradicts that opinion. So I think it is hard to push yourself into staying open to other possibilities. I definitely don't find that I learn much when I am in fight mode. Much better to take a break - and see if I can check my own bias. I think there is a difference between staying open - and concluding that there is some grand conspiracy of scientists to exploit science for personal gain. Just some thoughts as I turn in.

"If we assign a high degree of CO2 influence to man, and natural CO2 variances are artifacts of (and not primary drivers of) temperature change, then for there to be a deviation in the pattern now shouldn't be unexpected." - UbVontard

Poor UbVonTard. He posts a quote from the NOAA concerning the difficulties in determining precision dating and employs it without context to lend support to his idiotic assertion that the attribution of current climate change is "difficult to determine".

The full statement that UbVonTard dishonestly uses can be found here...

"While it might seem simple to determine cause and effect between carbon dioxide and climate from which change occurs first, or from some other means, the determination of cause and effect remains exceedingly difficult." - UbVonTard

Lies, lies, lies, lies.

That is all UbVonTard and the other Conservative climate change denialsits have.

"But trends are not since they are statistical entities, not measured data points."

True enough Vendi - but does it not give us pause - to see current C02 levels trending up, but temperatures on a plateau. Also - historically C02 has lagged temperature. So clearly the relationship between these two variables is complex. I think it is fair to say that the science is far from complete - and there may be some surprises in store for us as we continue to study. I am not saying we should be conducting this grand experiment - let's pump a few billion tons of green house gases up and see what happens. Wisdom should come down on the side of prudence - but I am not seeing too much wisdom being spread around these days. Thanks.

"It seems he has been trying to teach you guys climate science for longer than the rest of us. I suggest he has become tired of beating his head against a wall. I would. I have. But I will keep things civil".

Yup. (except I will be less civil)

"Appalling....you know your position has gone off the rails when this is your end run....wretched childishness."

There were manners abound on the deck of the Titanic. "Pardon me sir, is that seat taken?" "Why yes but you can have mine! Ta Ta. I'm going for a cool dip."

Science is nothing more than a conspiracy to control... in the minds of those who don't accept the conclusions it arrives at or the observations it makes. To attempt to maintain etiquette when debating lunacy is equally lunatic.

Apologist nonsense.....advocating public execution as a remedy for people with whom you disagree just belies your true motivations politically....and has no place in scientific discourse...ridiculous...

Can you please enlighten us on how you don't think standard deviation applies to data? Why do you think that your Excel spreadship lets you find standard deviations for data?

I think you are confusing the concept of standard deviation with "confidence interval."

Actually, it is Vendibot who seems confused. He keeps talking of standard deviations in regard to confidence in the mean (average) for fixed data series.

Max daily temperatures are like rolling dice. If you roll a thousand dice a thousand times, carefully recording each result, then average the results in a time series, the mean will be fixed. It cannot vary, as the data is fixed.

either you did not pass a course or never took one.

Says the one who thought sea ice and continental ice had the same melting point.

Poor Uba. He posts a quote from the NOAA concerning the difficulties in determining precision dating and employs it without context to lend support to his idiotic assertion that the attribution of current climate change is "difficult to determine".

"While it might seem simple to determine cause and effect between carbon dioxide and climate from which change occurs first, or from some other means, the determination of cause and effect remains exceedingly difficult." - Uba

So what relevant context are you claiming is missing?

Lies, lies, lies, lies.

So now you claim the NOAA are liars?

That is all Uba and the other Conservative climate change denialsits have.

Is this the source of your confusion? It's "Decadal," but it's misnamed. An expert would have known this.

and

They are not the same thing no, but they are not mutually exclusive either.

In your case, they appear to be mutually exclusive.

Appear is all it will ever be over the internet. If you are not prepared to give people credit for who they say they are on a reputable science website - then why bother posting at all? Attack the science if you must and not (perceived) inconsequential slips.

Some googling has revealed a difference in American English usage.

I call bull. Show references demonstrating "prejudice" and "one-track mind" are common plural forms.

cntdNo, there appears to be a genuine cultural difference between the addressing of groups. Here it is quite reasonable to use either actually. But I naturally fall into the assignment of the group as singular and hence use singular nouns.

Not uncivil

Your ad hominem attacks are decidely uncivil.

Please ( in the last 2 posts ) refer to an Ad Hominem attack I have made that isn't a direct reply to your Ad Hominem attack. You can't have it both ways.

No lies,

This is a lie in itself.

I repeat. No lies.

and on topic because all comments directly addressed yours.

In typical chatbot fashion.

You will find it takes more words to remain civil.

Let's get back to the science:

Indeed lets. There we can agree to differ.

Please sign in to add a comment.
Registration is free, and takes less than a minute.
Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.

Javascript is currently disabled in your web browser. For full site functionality, it is necessary to enable Javascript.
In order to enable it, please see these instructions.